Preventive Alcohol Education Program (OJJDP Model Program Guide)

Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities

PREVENTION

IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

RESIDENTIAL

REENTRY

MPG HOME SEARCH HOME SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS PROGRAM TYPES RATING SYSTEM REFERENCES NOMINATE PROGRAMS RELATED LINKS RESOURCES DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE

Preventive Alcohol Education Program

Intervention:

The Preventive Alcohol Education Program was developed following the tenets of inoculation theory, which postulates that an individual will better resist persuasive, threatening arguments if he or she learns the argument’s content and strategy beforehand. The program follows to the letter the two most fundamental principles of inoculation theory: 1) that participants be forewarned, or pre-exposed, to external threats by examining their content, strategy, and rationale before actual contact with them, and 2) that the subjects’ own vulnerability to attack, or persuasion, be made known to them.

The program consists of three components:

Question-and-answer sessions cover misconceptions youths have about alcohol consumption and human performance.
Role-playing simulations entail a variety of in-class role-plays (using both verbal and nonverbal resistance strategies) in which students read from prepared and “improvisational” scripts. After each role-play, the teacher provides students with evaluative feedback on their responses to the pressures (i.e., how to better refute or resist arguments, both verbally and using nonverbal signals).
An evocative slideshow presentation reviews the information covered in the aforementioned two components.

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
The evaluation used a Solomon Four-Group experimental design. Ninth graders (n=155) from a Nebraskan high school were randomly assigned to one of four groups: pretest treatment group (n=38), pretest control group (n=46), no-pretest treatment group (n=35), or no-pretest control group (n=36). A survey instrument was developed to measure the participants’ knowledge, ability to refute pro–drinking and driving arguments, tendency to comply in risky alcohol-related situations, attitudes toward drinking and driving, and frequency of alcohol-related behavior. The posttest was administered 1 week after program completion. Six months after program completion, those who had completed a pretest and the 1-week posttest (37 experimental and 46 control) were given another posttest. A 3-year follow-up survey was administered to students who were available from the original study (n=130: 91 treatment and 39 control).

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
At 1 week the researchers found a statistically significant increase in the treatment group’s knowledge, skill (ability to refute pro–drinking and driving arguments), and behavior (ability to resist risky alcohol-related situations). A favorable impact was made on the treatment group’s attitude that their drinking and driving may result in serious consequences (perceived susceptibility) and that accompanying those who drink and drive may result in serious consequences (perceived severity). The treatment group was less likely to accompany a drinking driver in a motor vehicle. There were no differences between the treatment group and the control group in drinking behavior.

The 6-month follow-up showed a significant increase in knowledge retention for the treatment group from pretest to 6-month posttest, while the control group remained the same. The treatment group exhibited significant gains in their abilities to refute new pro–drinking and driving arguments at 6 months, while the control group showed diminished abilities. The treatment also had a positive effect on compliance, and the researchers found that without it compliance decreased. The 3-year follow-up found no behavioral differences between the groups on the frequency of accompanying a drinking driver or frequency of drinking and no cognitive differences on beliefs regarding tolerance to alcohol. The control group participants actually reported drinking to excess fewer times than the treatment group, though these results were not statistically significant.

Other Information:

References:

Duryea, Elias J. 1983. “Utilizing Tenets of Inoculation Theory to Develop and Evaluate a Preventive Alcohol Education Intervention.” JOSH 53(4):250–56.

Duryea, Elias J., P. Mohr, I.M. Newman, Gary L. Martin, and E. Egwaoje. 1984. “Six-Month Follow-Up Results of a Preventive Alcohol Education Intervention.” Journal of Drug Education 14(2):97–104.

Duryea, Elias J., and Jebose O. Okwumabua. 1988. “Effects of a Preventive Alcohol Education Program After 3 Years.” Journal of Drug Education 18(1):23–31.

Program Specification:

Current Rating:

Promising

Expected Date of Re-Review:

Spring 2013

Program Type:

Alcohol and Drug Therapy / Education

Gender:

Both

Age:

12 - 17

Target Settings:

Rural

Suburban

Problem Behaviors:

Alcohol,Tobacco and Other Drug Use

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

Community

Availability of alcohol and other drugs

Neighborhood youth in trouble

Family

Family management problems / Poor parental supervision and/or monitoring

Individual

Favorable attitudes toward drug use/Early onset of AOD use/Alcohol and/or drug use

Life stressors

Poor refusal skills

Victimization and exposure to violence

Peer

Peer alcohol, tobacco, and/or other drug use

Peer rejection

School

Low academic achievement

Protective

Community

High community expectations

Nondisadvantaged neighborhood

Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in the community

Safe environment / Low neighborhood crime

Family

Effective parenting

Good relationship with parents / Bonding or attachment to family

High family expectations

Individual

Healthy / Conventional beliefs and clear standards

High individual expectations

Perception of social support from adults and peers

Positive / Resilient temperament

Positive expectations / Optimism for the future

Self-efficacy

Social competencies and problem solving skills

Peer

Good relationships with peers

Involvement with positive peer group activities

Parental approval of friends

School

High expectations of students

High quality schools / Clear standards and rules

Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in school

Strong school motivation / Positive attitude toward school

Additional Information:

SAMHSA: NREPP

Status:

Program is in operation at this time.

Contact Information:

Program Developer:
Elias J. Duryea, Ph.D.
Department of Health Education
106 College of Education
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Phone: 5052778187
Fax: 5052776227
Email: Click Here

Training & TA Provider:
Elias J. Duryea, Ph.D.
Department of Health Education
Johnson Center, 112 D
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Phone: 5052778187
Fax: 5052776227
Email: Click Here

Program Locations:
Carol Burkett, Asst. to the Public Safety Director
Orange County Coalition for a Drug Free Community
201 South Rosalind Avenue, Fifth Floor
Orlando, FL 32801